Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, ORD_10310/2024, 27 February 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 27 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_255/2023, ACT_551308/2023, App_7364/2024), the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of panel 2 of the Paris Central Division (P. Catallozzi) rejected Meril Italy srl’s request for a further exchange of written pleadings in its revocation action on EP 3 646 825 against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, and its request for leave to appeal. The order confirms that further written pleadings are exceptional.

Question

May the claimant in a revocation action obtain leave under Rule 36 RoP to respond in writing to what it regards as new arguments in the Rejoinder (priority and scope of the patent)?

Decision

The power under Rule 36 is discretionary and must respect proportionality, flexibility and fairness (paragraphs 8 to 10). The written procedure ensures due process and defines the dispute, with the aim of a swift decision, ideally within a year (paragraphs 11 and 12). Meril’s arguments did not justify departing from the ordinary regime (paragraph 13): the Rejoinder must be limited to responding to the Reply (Rule 52), if it keeps within that limit, there is no extraordinary circumstance calling for a further pleading and the claimant may respond at the oral hearing (paragraphs 14 and 15), if it goes beyond it, the excess is deemed not to have been lodged (paragraph 16). Leave to appeal was refused, since an appeal would be decided after the imminent hearing and would serve no practical purpose (paragraphs 17 and 18).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: faced with a Rejoinder that goes too far, the route is to argue that the excess is deemed not lodged and to respond at the hearing, not to seek a further written pleading.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Preamble (points 2, 4 and 7) and Rules 12.5, 35(a), 36, 43.5, 52, 58 and 110.1

Case law cited

ITCiCo Spain, Paris Central Division, 9 February 2024

Related decisions

• Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences, 27 February 2024, order of the same day refusing leave to replace the application to amend the patent.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.